Interviews with leading anti-SLAPP lawyers: Tomas Langer

Tomas Langer

The art of SLAPP defence is a selective field. Most lawyers have only a vague idea of SLAPPs, if any, as the topic is still barely present in their studies and existing regular training. 

As part of the PATFox project, we have been organising training and networking meetings for lawyers to change this. And we have talked to experts who have already gained a lot of experience with SLAPPs. In this, the second of a series of interviews (see also our previous interview with Michael Zammit Maempel), we present their experiences and perspectives.

JUDr. Tomas Langer, LL.M. is a lawyer from Bratislava, Slovakia. He is a specialist for the defence in legal matters concerning intellectual property, media, advertising, real estate and company law for over 16 years. Tomas has represented prominent media clients in dozens of cases concerning the protection of personality rights and the protection of reputation, and is one of Slovakia’s leading SLAPP-defenders. As such, he is also specialising in defending clients against high-profile reputational attacks in online media outlets and social networks, and also publishes and lectures, in particular on the protection of personality rights and freedom of expression.

Can you characterise the SLAPP cases you have handled in recent years - is there a ‘classic’ SLAPP case, or is it difficult to generalise? What makes these cases stand out?

Thank you for the invitation and for being able to provide insights into my experience in this field. I will answer from my experience with Slovakian cases, as that is my area of work, while I’m well aware of the broader international dimension of SLAPPs. 

Probably 10% - 20% of the 200 media-related cases I defended in the past years were SLAPPs. The plaintiffs in most cases were powerful persons, like businessmen, politicians or judges, but also companies and financial groups, targeting investigative journalists who publish articles criticising business methods or making corruption transparent. As another important characteristic of a SLAPP, there is the nature of such cases as exaggerated or even unfounded. And: the plaintiffs file for disproportionate compensation damages. Ordinary plaintiffs are usually awarded the compensation about  20.000€. However, plaintiffs in SLAPP cases demand  100.000€ or even several Million Euros for critical news coverage. 

What I don’t encounter very often are cases related to environmental activism. In my experience, SLAPPs in Slovakia are mostly aimed at investigative journalists. Most of these journalists get slapped with tactics focussing on harassment through great numbers of submissions made by the plaintiffs (such as criminal complaints, or requests for reply), which are time consuming to answer and intimidating for the targets. 

Do you think there are good practical ways to deal with SLAPP cases quickly?

Unfortunately, there are no easy answers as of yet. And I think this is a general problem, not only for us here in Slovakia, because no European member states has Anti-SLAPP legislation in place so far. I think that such measures are key to enable quickly accessible measures against SLAPPs. And I thus strongly support the draft directive brought forward by the European Commission. A particularly important mechanism here is the possibility to early dismiss SLAPP cases. I see a lot of unfounded cases were the abusive, strategic intention of the Plaintiff is clear from the beginning on, but judges still continue with the case, which helps SLAPPers.

What is the significance of SLAPP for your professional practice? Are such cases different from other cases?

As I represented a great number of journalists and defended against many SLAPPs already, the process is quite standardised. My procedure always relies on in-depth analysis of case documentations. If available, I submit evidence on the truthfulness of the sued news reports to the court. In addition, I refer to case law, e.g. rulings from the Slovakian Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg, or rulings from other EU countries, in particular the Czech Republic. Czech court rulings are quite useful against SLAPPers and contribute valuable orientation to Anti-SLAPP defence in Slovakia. 

I would say that there is one fundamental significant difference between SLAPP and other cases. The Slovakian democracy is still a young democracy, born in 1989. When I defend against SLAPPs, I have the feeling that I don’t only defend the client of the specific case, but also democracy as a whole - because it’s the democratic right of freedom of expression and the freedom of information which are at stake.

Are SLAPP cases more stressful than other cases?

Yes. The consequences are often quite massive: When the plaintiff is successful, the outcome of the case will negatively affect whole communities, movements or even regions or a whole country. When powerful plaintiffs try to push against freedom of expression and the right to receive independent information with SLAPPs, democratic mechanisms are fundamentally threatened, and the public itself is threatened in its capacity to develop a critical opinion. So the consequences of these cases reach much further in my opinion, which of course has effects on the individual stress level. Therefore I never underestimate these cases, even if it seems like the action of the plaintiffs cannot be won at the court.

How do you perceive the professional discourse on SLAPP in the past 2-3 years? How is the topic addressed and discussed in the legal profession in your eyes, what (non-)understanding is developing for it in the judiciary?

I think that the Slovak public realised that journalists are massively under threat at latest when journalist Ján Kuciak was murdered in 2018. Kurciak received a threatening phone call just before his murder, and got intimidated to not proceed in his journalistic work. This tragic case brought the attention of the public and many official institutions to the ongoing threats against journalists and NGOs.

Regarding the professional discourse of the judiciary: I’m worried about the attitude of judges. They are often not aware that keeping SLAPP cases on, even if they see that the case is unfounded, brings harm to the targets on the defence side: when the judges go and accept more evidence, more hearing days etc., they work in favour of the plaintiffs. I think it would be necessary to train judges in this regard and raise awareness of the character of SLAPPs also in this sphere. The public is aware of SLAPPs, the justice department also, but in courtrooms, there is often very little done in favour of defence and of justice in these cases.

What is your outlook - what role will SLAPPs play in the next 2-3 years?

I think that SLAPPs will remain a threat in the future. And that it is more important how the respective states will react with legislation against this. A proper reaction is needed, e.g. the broadening of the definition and scope of “SLAPP”. Legal steps are not always the quickest and best and only options, and I think an adequate public reaction to this issue will remain relevant.

As a particularly worrying development, I observe how SLAPP cases more and more move from the court rooms to social media, where SLAPP targets are increasingly harassed via aggressive and threatening posts, videos or shared press releases. This needs to be addressed more, as these kinds of publicly spreaded threats have a worrying impact on public opinion. And also have the character of SLAPPs, as these actors publicly announce to take legal steps against critical journalists in combination with hate speech and the distribution of conspiracy theories. The followers of the SLAPPers (e.g politicians) not only take over these hostile narratives towards journalists (in Facebook, Telegram, Youtube, etc), but they often follow up with physical threats and even personal confrontations.

This way, the public accusation of journalists works as a strategic intimidation, that doesn't need the courtroom any more, but uses social media to have a SLAPP-typical chilling effect on journalists and human rights activists. This needs to be addressed adequately by policy measures, new legislation and a serious debate with the providers of social platforms about their responsibility.